Contact with HPSCI outside chain of command

[TimWVU01]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/...3-rFHZI9A1Jdi9c-sv7kSjI3SFcMJLwfCa42bd6LsUnY4

So I thought some of you might like some perspective on this....

Whether "it has been done before" or not the rules requiring you to NOT contact the Committee's without your Agency approval (thru your IG Staff) are designed to protect classified and compartmented information from potentially being released to Commitee Staff (the Staff are the issue -- not the members) who are not cleared for that information. Here the whistleblower unilaterally violated the rules...

I once witnessed another IC member giving a classified brief to Congress where I thought they "purposefully" left out some details -- it wasn't a lie -- they just weren't telling the entire story. I looked into a whistleblower process myself at the time... and everyone who goes down the road is told "you can NOT unilaterally decided to contact the Committee" and explained the reasons why.

Whatever one thinks about the actual complaint (I have yet to see a violation of statute here -- btw)... the person who filed the complaint did NOT follow the rules. That troubles for a variety of reasons. If we eventually see the whistleblower "self-identify" then that combined with their intentional violation of the rules would tend to make me believe this is entirely political and/or potentially (or more likely) self-serving.....

 

[WVU82]

the WB is a ruse...

and a deflection from the truth...

watch the Glenn Beck video...

 

[moe]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/...3-rFHZI9A1Jdi9c-sv7kSjI3SFcMJLwfCa42bd6LsUnY4

So I thought some of you might like some perspective on this....

Whether "it has been done before" or not the rules requiring you to NOT contact the Committee's without your Agency approval (thru your IG Staff) are designed to protect classified and compartmented information from potentially being released to Commitee Staff (the Staff are the issue -- not the members) who are not cleared for that information. Here the whistleblower unilaterally violated the rules...

I once witnessed another IC member giving a classified brief to Congress where I thought they "purposefully" left out some details -- it wasn't a lie -- they just weren't telling the entire story. I looked into a whistleblower process myself at the time... and everyone who goes down the road is told "you can NOT unilaterally decided to contact the Committee" and explained the reasons why.

Whatever one thinks about the actual complaint (I have yet to see a violation of statute here -- btw)... the person who filed the complaint did NOT follow the rules. That troubles for a variety of reasons. If we eventually see the whistleblower "self-identify" then that combined with their intentional violation of the rules would tend to make me believe this is entirely political and/or potentially (or more likely) self-serving.....

Do you care about the content of the complaint or are you just focused on the process?

 

[TimWVU01]

the WB is a ruse...

and a deflection from the truth...

watch the Glenn Beck video...

ruse or not -- the rules are the rules. Frankly I would think the person has put themselves in some jeopardy in terms of their re-investigation process every 5 years or so -- depending on whether we believe classified information was provided without approval to people with no need to know.

 

[30CAT]

Do you care about the content of the complaint or are you just focused on the process?

The complaint is tainted with corruption and therefore worthless.

Stay giddy.

 

[TimWVU01]

Do you care about the content of the complaint or are you just focused on the process?

So I kind of mentioned that in my response -- I have yet to see to a violation of any statute in the complaint. Is asking the President of Ukraine to look into an investigation that was already taking place a violation of law -- No. The fact that it was about his political opponent -- does that make it politically "smelly" -- of course it does... but I don't see a violation of any statute. Linking that to the hold of up any federal aid to Ukraine is going to be nearly impossible to prove -- for a variety of reasons. Even if you could link it the Constitution gives the President sole responsibility for negiotiating treaties with foreign powers (the Senate approves treaties but the President is solely responsible for making them) and frankly because of that the President could hold up aid for just about any reason he might choose... afterall whether aid is given to another country at all is an Executive Branch appropriations request -- approved by Congress (not DEMANDED by Congress). So again -- politically unpalatable -- yep --- but violation of law.... doubtful. The American people will get to decide on those politically unpalatable things at the ballot box -- which is why impeachment is going nowhere.

So expanding on that -- if the whistleblower is willing to break the rules -- more importantly (and this will be telling) if they self identify themselves -- then it certainly becomes a political matter and possibly a self serving one in terms of the fame of that person.

 

[WVU82]

watch the Glenn Beck video...

it will put you in the correct zip code...

this whole thing is a lie...



adios...

 

[TarHeelEer]

Do you care about the content of the complaint or are you just focused on the process?

The complaint is a farce. The only thing you can bitch about is what Coop has been, that Trump asked for assistance to help our DOJ. Barr asked Trump to ask. This is going nowhere.

 

[TimWVU01]

By way of background on the power of the President and his being the sole power to conduct foreign affairs -- I highlight the LAW OF THE LAND below:


“The
President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with
foreign nations.” John Marshall 1804

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936),[1] was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.

In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation's "sole organ" in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.[2] The Court reasoned that while the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such authority, these powers are implicit in the President's constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.

Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President's plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.[3]


"It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution."

 

[WVUCOOPER]

The complaint is a farce. The only thing you can bitch about is what Coop has been, that Trump asked for assistance to help our DOJ. Barr asked Trump to ask. This is going nowhere.

Liar. Trump asked them to help the DOJ on CrowDStrike (lol) and, SEPARATELY, asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. Said the same to China and Ukraine yesterday on TV. You are a terrible liar for your Cheeto god.

 

[moe]

The complaint is a farce. The only thing you can bitch about is what Coop has been, that Trump asked for assistance to help our DOJ. Barr asked Trump to ask. This is going nowhere.

If getting impeached is going nowhere then you're right.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

The "complaint' is completely irrelevant. The WH released the call memo. Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate his political rivals yesterday.

 

[TimWVU01]

Liar. Trump asked them to help the DOJ on CrowDStrike (lol) and, SEPARATELY, asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. Said the same to China and Ukraine yesterday on TV. You are a terrible liar for your Cheeto god.

and while that is politically smelly -- it is NOT a violation of law..... no federal statute exists preventing that. The only federal statute in this area prevents foreign governments providing "things of value" under campaign finance law... The Special Counsel investigation (read it) said that even if Russia had provided Trump "dirt" it would not have violated campaign finance law because under the statutory definition that is not a thing of value.

 

[TimWVU01]

The "complaint' is completely irrelevant. The WH released the call memo. Trump asked Ukraine and China to investigate his political rivals yesterday.

Again -- NOT AGAINST THE LAW......

 

[Airport]

Do you care about the content of the complaint or are you just focused on the process?

Would you like it if Obama and Clintons phone calls and emails about supplying guns from Libya to syria were released this way? There are conservatives in the IC and those chose not to do illegal crap even with an anti-American president. Liberals are such whiny pussies.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Also, Rep Senator Burr said the whistle blower handled it correctly. I guess the OT board knows better than him?

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Again -- NOT AGAINST THE LAW......

It might be, but it need not be for impeachment.

 

[Airport]

Liar. Trump asked them to help the DOJ on CrowDStrike (lol) and, SEPARATELY, asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. Said the same to China and Ukraine yesterday on TV. You are a terrible liar for your Cheeto god.

Investigating criminals is never bad. Hopefully, the full force of the DOJ comes down on Obama's admin. It needs to be done. Criminals all over the place.

 

[TimWVU01]

It might be, but it need not be for impeachment.

so technically true --- but in every case of impeachment of a President a violation of law has been presented.

For Andrew Johnson it was violation of the Tenure of Office Act
For Richard Nixon it was obstruction of Justice (in this case the investigation of the Watergate break-in)
For Bill Clinton it was lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

Removing a President solely for doing something "politically unpalatable" would be something I think most people wouldn't approve of.....

 

[moe]

By way of background on the power of the President and his being the sole power to conduct foreign affairs -- I highlight the LAW OF THE LAND below:


“The
President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with
foreign nations.” John Marshall 1804

United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936),[1] was a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court concerning the foreign affairs powers of the President of the United States.

In its majority opinion, the Court held that the President, as the nation's "sole organ" in international relations, is innately vested with significant powers over foreign affairs, far exceeding the powers permitted in domestic matters or accorded to the U.S. Congress.[2] The Court reasoned that while the Constitution does not explicitly provide for such authority, these powers are implicit in the President's constitutional role as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch.

Curtiss-Wright was the first decision to establish that the President's plenary power was independent of Congressional permission, and consequently it is credited with providing the legal precedent for further expansions of executive power in the foreign sphere.[3]


"It is important to bear in mind that we are here dealing not alone with an authority vested in the President by an exertion of legislative power, but with such an authority plus the very delicate, plenary and exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations–a power which does not require as a basis for its exercise an act of Congress, but which, of course, like every other governmental power, must be exercised in subordination to the applicable provisions of the Constitution."

Impeachment is not a legal process but a political one so you don't need to break a law which is not to say that he hasn't. The FEC chair thinks dimly of his actions. Also the quid pro quo was shown more clearly yesterday.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/us-envoys-trump-ukraine-investigate/index.html

Ellen Weintraub, the chair of the Federal Election Commission, took to Twitter Thursday afternoon to muse over whether or not President Donald Trump understands that soliciting or accepting foreign assistance during an election is against the law.

"Is this thing on?" Weintraub wondered, linking to a tweet she made in June drawing attention to the fact that it is illegal for any American—a political candidate, a regular citizen, or even the U.S. president—to solicit or accept "anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Investigating criminals is never bad. Hopefully, the full force of the DOJ comes down on Obama's admin. It needs to be done. Criminals all over the place.

 

[TimWVU01]

Mueller on accepting dirt from Foreign Governments ----


Under federal law, campaigns are barred from taking or soliciting a “thing of value” from foreign nationals in connection with an election. The ban includes monetary gifts, such as campaign contributions, or uncompensated gifts such as polling data or mailing lists. “Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research,” Mueller notes in his report. “A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.” Though Mueller noted that such information could be more important to a campaign than money, he pointed out that courts have not defined uncompensated opposition research as a “thing of value” that could amount to a contribution under campaign finance law. Mueller added he did not pursue charges against members of the Trump team at the meeting in part because the investigation did not find evidence that they acted with “general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct.” The report noted that the prosecution has to establish a defendant knew their conduct was illegal to charge an individual. Mueller found that “the investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban.”




Mueller explained “later efforts to prevent disclosure of the nature of the June 9 meeting” mostly came from people that did not attend the meeting and has more to do with “avoid[ing] political consequences rather than any prior knowledge of illegality.” Later in the report, Mueller began to explain why the First Amendment “could pose constraints on a prosecution,” but any further explanation, described as information that could harm an ongoing matter, is redacted.

 

[TimWVU01]

Impeachment is not a legal process but a political one so you don't need to break a law which is not to say that he hasn't. The FEC chair thinks dimly of his actions. Also the quid pro quo was shown more clearly yesterday.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/us-envoys-trump-ukraine-investigate/index.html

Ellen Weintraub, the chair of the Federal Election Commission, took to Twitter Thursday afternoon to muse over whether or not President Donald Trump understands that soliciting or accepting foreign assistance during an election is against the law.

"Is this thing on?" Weintraub wondered, linking to a tweet she made in June drawing attention to the fact that it is illegal for any American—a political candidate, a regular citizen, or even the U.S. president—to solicit or accept "anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election."

See above from Special Counsel investigation -- accepting "dirt" on a candidate from a foreign power is NOT a violation of law under the statute..... because "dirt" can't be valued. Blame those who wrote the law if you will -- but that is the law.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

so technically true --- but in every case of impeachment of a President a violation of law has been presented.

For Andrew Johnson it was violation of the Tenure of Office Act
For Richard Nixon it was obstruction of Justice (in this case the investigation of the Watergate break-in)
For Bill Clinton it was lying under oath and obstruction of justice.

Removing a President solely for doing something "politically unpalatable" would be something I think most people wouldn't approve of.....

Right. Should make for a great defense in the Senate. How many of those crimes were found during the impeachment inquiries vs before any investigation? Get serious. Of course there is going to be an investigation when something like this comes out. Why all the angst? Not like there is ANY chance Trump broke any law.

 

[TimWVU01]

"Also the quid pro quo was shown more clearly yesterday." -- doesn't matter if quid pro quo is PROVEN. Again not a violation of law based on Curtiss decision and John Marshall's view of the President's power in the conduct of foreign affairs. He can withhold aid for ANY reason he chooses. If a nations inability to complete a "corruption investigation" is the reason -- he is within his right to do so. Politically ugly -- sure -- violation of LAW -- No!!!

 

[TimWVU01]

Right. Should make for a great defense in the Senate. How many of those crimes were found during the impeachment inquiries vs before any investigation? Get serious. Of course there is going to be an investigation when something like this comes out. Why all the angst? Not like there is ANY chance Trump broke any law.

So if you agree the Senate is not going to remove him then what is the point of this -- particularly when we have an election next year. Let the voters decide it....

 

[WVUCOOPER]

See above from Special Counsel investigation -- accepting "dirt" on a candidate from a foreign power is NOT a violation of law under the statute..... because "dirt" can't be valued. Blame those who wrote the law if you will -- but that is the law.

That is not what Mueller said. He said no courts have ruled on it and decided not to push it since it could be argued they did not act with knowledge it was illegal. Good luck using that defense for Trump on his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, how man more times. I mean, ffs, read what you posted.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

"Also the quid pro quo was shown more clearly yesterday." -- doesn't matter if quid pro quo is PROVEN. Again not a violation of law based on Curtiss decision and John Marshall's view of the President's power in the conduct of foreign affairs. He can withhold aid for ANY reason he chooses. If a nations inability to complete a "corruption investigation" is the reason -- he is within his right to do so. Politically ugly -- sure -- violation of LAW -- No!!!

Back to Trump is above the law. Trump is God. All of those other defenses we pretended to care about was bulltshit. Seems to me impeachment is the only remedy.

 

[rog1187]

Right. Should make for a great defense in the Senate. How many of those crimes were found during the impeachment inquiries vs before any investigation? Get serious. Of course there is going to be an investigation when something like this comes out. Why all the angst? Not like there is ANY chance Trump broke any law.

But we're not in an official impeachment inquiry are we? No vote has been taken to approve an impeachment inquiry...Pelosi is not following the House rules ans she knows it. I hope if Trump does get impeached, that folks don't cry about how the GOP controlled Senate runs their part because Pelosi isn't following the rules previously set.

 

[countryroads89]

I have yet to see a violation of statute here

 

[moe]

"Also the quid pro quo was shown more clearly yesterday." -- doesn't matter if quid pro quo is PROVEN. Again not a violation of law based on Curtiss decision and John Marshall's view of the President's power in the conduct of foreign affairs. He can withhold aid for ANY reason he chooses. If a nations inability to complete a "corruption investigation" is the reason -- he is within his right to do so. Politically ugly -- sure -- violation of LAW -- No!!!

With China and the Ukraine the POTUS is not really conducting foreign affairs, he's asking for personal favors from foreign governments intended solely to try to get him re-elected while, in the Ukraine instance, was withholding aid until he got the investigations that he wanted. Who knows what he'd give away to the Chinese to get the investigation he wants there. I don't see where he's acting on behalf of the U.S. gov't in ways that would benefit the nation. I guess you're ok with shaking down foreign governments to interfere with our elections while others are not.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Also, Rep Senator Burr said the whistle blower handled it correctly. I guess the OT board knows better than him?

We do. He went to Schiff instead of turning in the complaint first, as required by law for IC complaints. Burr is wrong.

 

[moe]

He went to Schiff

Prove it. I understand that he went to the committee not necessarily Schiff, there's a difference.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

But we're not in an official impeachment inquiry are we? No vote has been taken to approve an impeachment inquiry...Pelosi is not following the House rules ans she knows it. I hope if Trump does get impeached, that folks don't cry about how the GOP controlled Senate runs their part because Pelosi isn't following the rules previously set.

Official? Don't think that much matters. The House can do it how they want. For the FULL force of their powers they may have to be, but it seems they are more in the introductory phase.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

We do. He went to Schiff instead of turning in the complaint first, as required by law for IC complaints. Burr is wrong.

Classic

 

[TarHeelEer]

Prove it. I understand that he went to the committee not necessarily Schiff, there's a difference.

Good God, quit watching CNN.

 

[TimWVU01]

With China and the Ukraine the POTUS is not really conducting foreign affairs, he's asking for personal favors from foreign governments intended solely to try to get him re-elected while, in the Ukraine instance, was withholding aid until he got the investigations that he wanted. Who knows what he'd give away to the Chinese to get the investigation he wants there. I don't see where he's acting on behalf of the U.S. gov't in ways that would benefit the nation. I guess you're ok with shaking down foreign governments to interfere with our elections while others are not.

and that is NOT a violation of any federal law.... politically stinky -- absolutely -- violation of law -- NOPE!

 

[moe]

Good God, quit watching CNN.

I'm right until I read differently. Just pushing back on the POTUS's laughable lie that Schiff helped write the complaint.

 

[TimWVU01]

That is not what Mueller said. He said no courts have ruled on it and decided not to push it since it could be argued they did not act with knowledge it was illegal. Good luck using that defense for Trump on his 2nd, 3rd, 4th, how man more times. I mean, ffs, read what you posted.

Under federal law, campaigns are barred from taking or soliciting a “thing of value” from foreign nationals in connection with an election. The ban includes monetary gifts, such as campaign contributions, or uncompensated gifts such as polling data or mailing lists. “Political campaigns frequently conduct and pay for opposition research,” Mueller notes in his report. “A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value.” Though Mueller noted that such information could be more important to a campaign than money, he pointed out that courts have not defined uncompensated opposition research as a “thing of value” that could amount to a contribution under campaign finance law.

If the courts have NOT defined "dirt" as a thing of value -- then you are NOT going to charge somebody with that crime.....

 

[moe]

and that is NOT a violation of any federal law.... politically stinky -- absolutely -- violation of law -- NOPE!

Whatever you say counselor. It's a messgeboard and you're free to speculate.